Are
there signs of hope in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Apparently so, but we do, of course, need to examine them
critically. One of the hopeful signs is:

The Arab Peace Initiative

On the
initiative of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the
Arab-Israeli Peace Initiative agreed by Arab leaders in 2002
was reaffirmed at the Arab League summit March 28-29 this
year. It calls for Israel to withdraw from all land gained
in 1967, including the Golan Heights, and for the setting up
of an independent Palestinian state in Gaza and the West
Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital (So Arab Al Quds
would stand side by side with Jewish Jerusalem). In
exchange, the Arab states agree to regard the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict as over and to “establish
natural relations with Israel as part of an overall peace”.

Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert responded fairly positively to
the Initiative and said it
“is a subject we would be willing to treat seriously.” He
said later: “If the Saudi king initiates a meeting of heads
of moderate [Arab] states and invites me and the head of the
Palestinian Authority, I will be glad to attend and express
our opinion.” Vice Premier Shimon Peres called the Saudi
peace plan a "historic declaration … the first time a large
Arab state has decided to move from a strategy of war to a
strategy of peace."
In a remarkable new development, an Arab League delegation
(comprising the foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan) is
about to visit Israel to discuss the Arab peace initiative.

Nevertheless there are important sticking points for Israel
in the Arab Initiative. One is the right of return towhat is
now Israel of some 4 million Palestinian refugees, in
accordance with Resolution 194 of the UN General Assembly of
December 1948 which states that “the refugees wishing to
return to their homes and live at peace with their
neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest
practicable date.” Most of them live in
Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Jordan and the Gulf states.The UN Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination
recently reaffirmed this Resolution. For Israel to allow
this would hasten the day when the country would have a
majority of Arab citizens which would mean that, as a
democracy, it would cease to be a Jewish state – something
the Israelis would never allow to happen.

In March
Olmert stated: “Israel will never accept Resolution 194, and
this constitutes a red line for us. But anything over this
red line, including creative solutions to the refugees
[problem], which does not include their settlement in
Israel, is open for discussion.”

However,
various Israeli commentators point out that agreeing to this
point in the Arab Initiative is not as serious as it may
appear. The word “permitted” in Resolution 194 indicates
that return of refugees can only be granted by the Israeli
government. Israel would have the power of veto and not be
open to legal challenge.

On the
other hand, had the Arab leaders sought to exclude this
requirement, which was not in the original Saudi draft, they
would have alienated hardliners such as Syria, which would
have used its veto.

Another
sticking point is the requirement of handing over East
Jerusalem to the Palestinians which would mean moving half a
million Jewish Israelis. The withdrawal from Gaza suggests
this might be acceptable, but, unlike Gaza, Jerusalem has
very deep religious significance. In fact Israel plans to
build a new Jewish neighbourhood in East Jerusalem. But according
to recent statistics, Jerusalem will lose its Jewish
majority in 2035, in any case. The Mayor of Jerusalem says
it will happen in less than a decade.

Does this peace initiative have any greater chance of
success than previous attempts? Many people feel it has for
a number of reasons. It was initiated by King Abdullah who,
as guardian of Islam’s holiest sites, has great influence.
It is backed by the 22 countries of the Arab League. Such
an international Muslim backing would probably be able to
curb Palestinian extremism.

There is another important factor which can encourage a
successful peace agreement:

The Iran Factor

The driving force behind the Saudi Peace Initiative is the
fear which moderate Arab regimes have of the spread of
radical Islamism by Iran. They fear that radical Islam will,
in the end, triumph over the present moderate and secular
Arab rulers, whether by democratic or revolutionary means.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is stirring up discontent
among the Arab populations and this is playing into the
hands of Iran. Attacks by the IDF on Palestinians are beamed
into many homes by Arab satellite TV and Iran is exploiting
this discontent. So the threatened Arab leaders are seeking
to bring Hamas, a Sunni organisation, under their control
and to establish peace in the Holy Land. Attempts are also
being made to bring Syria back into the fold.

The moderate Arab regimes hope to encourage Hamas to
continue to distance itself from the global jihad of Al-Qaida,
as it integrates into Palestinian politics. Similar
integration is happening to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt,
the Islamic Action Front in Jordan, the Renaissance Party in
Tunisia and the Justice and Development Party in Morocco.

Another aspect is their fear of Iran’s nuclear ambitions as
well as the build up of arms by Syria. The main worry is
that Iran could become a regional superpower. It is in this
context that President Ahmadinejad of Iran visited Saudi
Arabia recently for “crucial talks”

Then there are the various conflicts in
the Arab world: Syria and Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Qatar,
Fatah and Hamas, the Arab states and Iran, and, of course,
Iraq itself.
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has publicly admitted that
his organization is secretly smuggling arms and ammunition
to south Lebanon , in blatant violation of Security Council
Resolution 1701 (which ended the second Lebanon war).
All of these conflicts weaken the effectiveness of the Arab
League.

In April a delegation of Knesset (Israeli Parliament)
members visited King Abdullah II of Jordan. He urged them to
accept the Arab Peace Initiative, saying repeatedly: “We
are in the same boat, we have the same problem. We have the
same enemies.” He was clearly referring to Iran, Hezbollah
and Hamas and added “Do you want Iran on the banks of the
Jordan?”

Some Israeli commentators believe that Israel needs to have
internationally-recognised borders, not only as essential to
creating a Palestinian homeland, but as part of its defence
against the growing influence of radical Islam, and that the
Arab Peace Initiative affords the best opportunity of
achieving this. It commits the Arab world to recognising the
legitimate existence of Israel. Obviously it also achieves
statehood for the Palestinians too. These commentators argue
that Israel must achieve peace with the Arab peoples, not
just with their pro-Western leaders.

Rabbi Melchior, chairman of the Knesset’s Education and
Culture Committee, commented: “Together with Israel’s
uncompromising demand for the eradication of terror and for
maintaining security, we must also broaden the existing
channels of dialogue.Those
who do not want the current leadership will tomorrow get
Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida instead. If we bury all hope
about the current alternative, we will find ourselves facing
an Arab world united behind the Iranian intentions to
annihilate Israel.”

A recent survey (The Peace Index,
conducted by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research
and the Evens Program in Mediation and Conflict Resolution
at Tel Aviv University) found that of the 62% of Israelis
who had heard about the Saudi proposal, 56% support
responding to the initiative, while 38% are opposed.

Other factors also encourage a constructive Israeli response
to the Arab Initiative. The continuing failure of the
United States to achieve peace in Iraq is undermining the
credibility of the use of force to deal with radical states
like Iran. The effectiveness of US mediation (e.g. linked
with the Egyptians) is diminishing whilst that of Saudi
Arabia is growing. Then there is the continuing strife in
Palestinian areas.

The Syrian Factor

Syria has been making overtures about peace which have been
rejected by Israel. However,
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is preparing for the
possibility of a renewed peace process with Syria, and
National Security Council (NSC) Chairman
Ilan Mizrahi told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense
Committee that “Syria’s call for dialogue with Israel is
authentic.”

Nevertheless, Israeli Intelligence is concerned about the
possibility of war with Syria. Recently the Syrian President
was asked if Syria would be obliged to take military action
to regain the Golan Heights. He replied: “That claim is true
and that is what I told senior, foreign officials. Timing is
a critical element in the peace process. Delays heighten
tension, and tension heightens extremism, and extremism
forces quick solutions with high prices. We in Syria believe
that peace is the easiest and fastest solution, the least
costly and best way to ensure the future and stability of
the region. Circumstances, during the last two years, were
not rosy, but we must prepare ourselves. It is possible that
the next phase is one of peace. If there is a turn to war,
that will be the general choice in the region.”

Apparently the Syrians are concerned that
the United States will carry out an attack against Iran’s
nuclear installations in the summer, and in parallel Israel
would strike Syria and Lebanon. Ehud Olmert denied this.

The Mecca Agreement

As reported in the last edition of Paradox, on February 8th
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia invited Palestinian President
Mahmoud Abbas and
Khaled Meshal, (head of the Hamas political bureau in
Damascus) to bring an end to Palestinian
in-fighting. They agreed to form a new unity
government that will “respect” previous peace deals signed
by the PLO with Israel and authorised the PLO to negotiate
with Israel over the establishment of a Palestinian state
within the 1967 borders. Under the
agreement Hamas is not committed actually to keep the past
agreements with Israel (which Abbas wanted) and it does not
directly recognise Israel. But it does accept in theory
those agreements dealing with the terms of achieving normal
relations with Israel.

The Mecca Agreement does press for a change in the position
of Hamas. It has to drop its previous limited acceptance of
prior agreements signed by the PLO and agree to honour them
all. Palestinian
Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas abstained in the vote
because Hamas will not
recognise
the legitimacy of Israel.

On March 16th the unity government was set up.
The
agreement between Fatah and Hamas on which it is based
accepts violent “resistance” as the Palestinians’ “
legitimate right, ” which will only be abandoned when all of
the Palestinians’ demands have been met, including the right
to return . No mention is made of the right of Israel to
exist (not even within the 1967 borders) nor of the
two-state solution. However the government undertakes to
extend a ceasefire if Israel stops its acts of occupation.
This includes not only the IDF no longer entering
Palestinian cities, detaining Palestinians or carrying out
targeted killings, but also removal of the Fence, of
restrictions on Palestinian movement and release of
Palestinian prisoners. The unity government would support a
prisoner exchange.

Iran has welcomed the Mecca agreement, and has pledged $240
million to the unity government. It is also providing
military technology and training to Hamas militants.

Israel has expressed its opposition to the unity government
until it fulfilled all the requirements of the international
Quartet, including recognition of Israel, and relinquishing
violence. Olmert is now meeting with Abbas every two weeks
to discuss matters such as prisoner
release, terrorism, improving conditions for Palestinians,
but not about
Jerusalem, refugees and borders. But heaccused Abbas of breaking
agreements between the two of them that the unity government
would be delayed until the release of kidnapped Israeli
soldier Gilad Shalit and an agreed end to violence.

Hamas

Hamas
has offered a complete ceasefire if the Israelis persuade
the international community not to boycott the new
Palestinian unity government.

However, Bin Laden’s deputy,
Ayman al-Zawahiri, strongly criticised Hamas for joining the
unity government, accusing it of “selling
Palestine to the Jews” in order to gain a place in the
government. Perhaps in response to this, Hamas gave a TV
interview stating: “The government platform is not the
platform of Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement. The
fundamental principles of the unity government are the
lowest common denominator agreed upon by the Palestinian
factions. We are saying loud and clear that the Hamas
movement still considers itself the spearhead in the
conflict with the oppressive enemy. It will not relinquish
its platform of resistance … In the strongest of terms, we
oppose such negotiations and everything that will come out
of it. We, the Hamas movement, will not agree to it…”

Even after Hamas and Fatah agreed to the establishment of
the unity government there have still been clashes between
the Palestinian factions. At the end of February
five Palestinians were killed and approximately 40 wounded
in Khan Yunis by Hamas-Fatah violence.
Also BBC Correspondent Alan Johnston has been
kidnapped, though not by Hamas.

In
addition, despite agreement between Fatah and Hamas to
encourage the spread of a ceasefire from Gaza to the West
Bank, there have been attacks on Israel. The Israelis
uncovered a suicide bomb plot planned for Passover, which
for some reason was aborted by the terrorists (the van
concerned blowing up back in Qalqilya). Rocket attacks on
Israel continued. Hamas admitted making a rocket attack on
Southern Israel at the end of April and this raises the
spectre of a major confrontation in Gaza.

The
Palestinian Authority has agreed to an American plan giving
“benchmarks” for an 8-month timetable to facilitate peace
talks between Israel and the Palestinians but Hamas has
rejected it Olmert also has said he cannot accept some of
its demands or security reasons.
Khaled Meshal, anticipating an attack by Israel, said: “We
in Hamas are also preparing ourselves for battle, and we
expect hot months.” Abbas threatened to resign in the near
future if the international community did not accept the
unity government and call off the economic boycott.

Israeli attitudes

On the one hand, the economy is booming
and there is action against corruption. The country’s
military might is greater than ever before and, with the
Arab Peace Initiative, Israel is not as isolated as it used
to be.

However there are continuing threats against Israel’s
legitimacy and existence, and a battle to keep Jerusalem has
begun. More significant, the Olmert Government is very
unpopular and 70% of Israelis believe it does not have the
public support to negotiate over a final status agreement.
The government-appointed Winograd Commission concluded that
Ehud Olmert’s conduct during the Lebanon War as “a serious
failure.” He made “rash decisions to go to war” without
proper consultation and process or “in-depth analysis of the
necessity for a military move, its timing and nature.” The
declared goals of the war “were over-ambitious and not
feasible.” Over 120,000 people gathered in Tel Aviv,
calling on Olmert and Defence Minister Peretz to resign.

How do we pray?

For
Israel at this time of political turmoil and weakness.

For
the welfare of the Palestinian people not least through
wise economic policies in using new government income
which will alleviate poverty and build up
infrastructure.

For
effective peace talks between Israel and the
Palestinians, and, if Syria’s approaches are sincere,
between Israel and Syria, plus Lebanon.

For
curbing of Iran’s power and prevention of its nuclear
intentions.

For
peace and security with justice throughout Israel and
the Palestinian areas.